Talk:Expertise
does anyone have the energy cost for skills with Quickening Zephyr and Expertise? --Ollj 07:57, 30 Aug 2005 (EST) If you cast energizing then zephyr: 25 -> 13 15 -> 13 10 -> 13 5 -> 7 Zephyr, then energizing: 25 -> 18 15 -> 10 10 -> 13 5 -> 7 Yes, it does appear that 10 -> 13 for the latter case is a bug. I reported it and got two responses. The first was "looks like all the info for a bug report is here," and then like a week later, "the dev team has been notified." That's all so far. --Fyren 11:39, 30 Aug 2005 (EST) There is no bug because energizing wind does not lower below 10 and quickening zephyr adds 30% But what does this have to do with expertise levels? Hah, I forgot to paste the table: 5 10 15 25 3 6 11 17 29 4 6 11 16 28 5 6 10 15 26 6 5 9 14 25 7 5 9 14 24 8 5 9 13 22 9 4 8 12 21 10 4 8 11 20 11 4 7 11 18 12 4 7 10 17 13 3 6 9 16 14 3 6 8 15 15 3 5 8 13 16 3 5 7 12 Expertise down the left, base cost across the top. I didn't test the low end. About the bug, it should get increased to 13 and then decreased back to 10. --Fyren 12:27, 30 Aug 2005 (EST) ---- does expertise shorten recharge time? : No Skuld‡ 17:22, 18 October 2005 (EST) Regarding this change (not mine), it may have been taken out because it's largely redundant with the line above it (now that it says "all other non-spell skills from any profession"). Maybe both lines should edited for clarity, but it is pretty clearly redundant with those two lines so close to each other. --JoDiamonds 07:58, 3 November 2005 (EST) :I cut out the list of types and just said non-spells. Seems simpler this way. --Fyren 13:48, 3 November 2005 (EST) "All non-spell skills" Sdc readded the references to specific types, but I think this is much better off with just "expertise affects all non-spell skills from any profession." --Fyren 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :I tend to agree -- the list is slightly more confusing since it covers almost the same set but not, for example, Warrior's Cunning. Maybe collapse things into something like this: :*Expertise reduces the energy costs of all non-spell skills (Glyphs, Preparations, Shouts, etc) from any profession at a rate of 4% per point. :--Rezyk 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC) ::I don't see how you can get more explicit and descriptive than "any non-spell." Listing anything will only lead to confusion. --Fyren 17:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :::Either way (listing none, listing a few with "etc") is fine in my view. --Rezyk 17:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :::I vote for Rezyk's formulation. The advantage is that you have all the information from the page. If you just write "any non-spell", there is no link, and therefore no quick way to see exactly which skills are affected. --SDC 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC) ::::If someone wants to know if a certain skill is affected, they'd search for the skill's article to look it up. If they don't know if it's a spell or not, looking through the 150+ non-spells across several categories won't help. --Fyren 06:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC) :::::Maybe I was unclear, I was thinking about the opposite: when you want to know which skills are affected by Expertise (which is often not obvious, especially for secondary-class skills). The first time I read this page, I was wondering: "which skills are non-spells?". This is why I thought it would be nice to have a list of the affected skills accessible from the Expertise page. :::::Another possibility might be to add an "Affected Skills" or "Affected Skill Categories" header at the end of the page, and list the corresponding categories there. What do you think? --SDC 07:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC) ::::::Exactly my thoughts. Let's have a "Skills affected by Expertise" section at the bottom. State that in total they are skills that do not have the spell skill type, and then list them categorized by types (attacks, Signets, ..., typeless). --Karlos 07:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC) :::::::My issue is you either know what type the skill is, you don't, or you're not wondering about one in particular and I don't think listing the (by my count) 205 non-spells across 15 types is helpful for any case. If you know the type, then even if you don't have a clue about the skill type "hierarchy," it'll either say "spell" in it or not. If you don't know, I don't think presenting a 200+ item list is a good way to impart the info for one skill. Especially if you arrange them by type (since they have to look through 15 lists instead of one). If you list the categories, that's still 15 for them to click through. If they're looking in general, again, there's either a huge list or a lot of clicking. --Fyren 15:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'll agree with Fyren here, I think it's clear enough what "any non-spell" skill means, no need to list all the other spell categories which is kinda like saying: "all the following skills don't have spell in there definition, therefore, they are not spells". It's much simpler and clearer to do a negative definition by saying it affect all non spell and link to the spell category list. --theeth 16:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)